It must have been at least a week without the US government announcing some stimulus, subsidy, tariff or other protectionist measure, because today the government just passed yet another $79 billion stimulus bill, extending unemployment benefits and restoring expired tax breaks. The net cost to the deficit: around $30 billion. This really is a drop in the bucket: so far in fiscal 2010, the US budget has already spent over $107 billion on unemployment benefits, and $30 billion is less than the government raises in one of its three biweekly coupon auctions. On the other hand, when Obama next wonders why nobody in America works any more, he may want to reevaluate that 6 million unemployed people in the US are now encouraged to be on government payrolls for two years.

The money we lose to the central planners in DC all goes to feed the beast, whether it is called income tax, death tax, gasoline tax, or "social security contributions." The names they give to each slice of your hard earned wealth are euphemisms meant to make you feel less raped along the way.

Was food shopping this morning and the person in front of me was buying some great steaks and other food for this weekend. Then they pull out the food stamp (SNAP) card and swipe away baby. Amazing the great things you can get for free from the USA Government. By the way ZH'ers, the food stamp (SNAP) program is run by JP Morgan. So...

I don't get it, deficit spending is deficit spending...why has all the MSM and ZH to boot covered the deficit spending of extending unemplpyment but not the deficit spending of the war that just got a whole lot more money that unemployed people. US voters may be more in support of waging war and deficit spending on it than spending on unemployment, but still, debt is debt, whey highlight the lessor amount when reporter...and better story would be between the Def spending and unemployemnet spening we just added 90 billion

ZH, sometimes you are a great counter to MSM and sometimes you thoughtlessly follow the herd....a true fiscally concerned person, like say Ron Paul, will mention ALL the overbudget spending.

Is there something wrong with the economy that we would need to extend federal unemployment benefits? The folks on CNBS said things are improving and people are being hired, so I don't understand the passage of this bill.

"Rep. Michele Bachmann offered this week's winning cut on the House Floor; an amendment to eliminate a pay raise for federal government employees - including right here in the Capitol - saving the taxpayers over $30 billion.

The Democrats gaveled it down from the Speaker's chair, shutting down debate. The reason the Democrat Majority gave? It would prevent federal workers on Capitol Hill from getting a pay raise, so it could not be considered. That is literally the reason they gave. It is astounding, and an affront to every small businessperson and struggling family across this country.

The up-or-down vote was clear, the majority in the U.S. House voted to allow pay raises for non-military federal employees, while the rest of the country is facing pay cuts."

Fuck Bachmann. She'd never get reelected if she wasn't bringing all of that farm welfare/socialism back to her home district. Anyone can do that job, she just looks nice when she does it. She should publish the porno which shows her sucking all those dicks to get the farm subsidies for her district. (I'd probably buy it.)

What are transfer payments supposed to "stimulate?" Survival? Odd use of the term. Too bad we can't just call it the dole and be done with it. Clearer language leads to clearer thought, which is what I suppose is being avoided.

Socialists have to trumpet the idea that, in a non-profit based society, we'd all go skipping merrily to work out of duty to state.

To not throw a monkey wrench in this flawed ideology, they must also pretend that most collecting unemployment wake up at the crack of dawn and hit the streets looking for work, when, in fact, most wait until the expiration of their benefits before doing so.

I've seen studies (confirmed in other conversations with recruiters and other HR folks) that say for every $10K you make in salary, you have a month of job search time when you're unemployed. So, someone making $60K has a 6-month search "baked in". That's an average person in an average economy. There is NO WAY that $10K/1 month ratio isn't higher in this economy.

So, someone whose salary puts them firmly in the "upper-lower middle class" is looking at 8-9 months of unemployment easily. Then, when you factor in that no one will hire that person to do a job of someone who used to make $35-45K because they're afraid the former $60K person will bolt at the first chance to do so, it isn't so much finding a job to their satisfaction as much as it is finding someone who will hire them.

Maybe HR and recuiting firms are being "too picky" and should let former corporate types work at jobs that, objectively-speaking, are below their skill levels (let's stipulate that the person in question is competent. Yes, I know that many people, before 2008 and even now, are in jobs for which they are incompetent).

For those people, unfortunately, unemployment benefits are the best short-term option and sometimes the only one.

Yes, I also know that many will say, "They should start their own business". Well, for every 1 that will succeed in doing that, 10 will fail. And, in failing, they will use up time that could have been spent looking for a job, rather than starting a new business.

I've known people who have good work experience, education and want to work, but just can't get hired. Part of it is that for every time you actually get an interview, you're still looking at competing against 10-15 others with similar background/education/work ethic. It's pretty long odds even when you've gotten to the interview stage. You have to be damn near perfect every step of the way to get an offer.

Perhaps there is a glut of this human capital? Many people have an easy time rationalizing why the Mexicans pick the fruit and they work in air-conditioning. Who has a better chance of survival when the chips are down? The person who can survive by picking fruit or the person who can only shuffle paper in an office?

Everyone will have to expatriate unless you want to be a sexual servant / waiter / masseuse to a financier or government worker. Not even joking on this - it's baked into the tax code and the labor laws.

"Not even joking on this - it's baked into the tax code and the labor laws. "

Big time. Hollywood and the education establisment got the natural result of villify industry, effort, and profit. An out of control government taxing and regulating producitive acitivity right out of the country. In the process they're producing the poor exploited, powerless masses that were actually thin on the ground before by the millions

Hoo ha! Too funny. I do have a heart and feel for the unemployed. However, let's face it, most American jobs are BS anyway. They can be done by any monkey and a lot of them are consumptive, not productive jobs. Yes, that means you MBA paper pushers/mini dictators too. And if US people WERENT SO FUCKING STUPID (degreed or not), they would have been watching and hounding what our government and corporate policies have been for the last 30/40 years. Most people bought into the game for all those nice salaries doing nothing. They f'd themselves.

RC, not ridiculing, just bitch slapping. I am self employed, have worked since I was 15, am now 50. I employ other people, but I do not tolerate laziness or stupidity from my employees, they have to actually work for a living. They are rewarded for that, they are more like family than employees. What gets me mad is stupid, lazy people who can't figure out anything else than being a wage slave to feel they have a right to take MY and MY EMPLOYEES money from our families mouths because they are too lazy to work at McDonalds or start their own biz when their bennies run out. I never got that luxury, neither did my employees. I have avoided, the best of my ability, to depend on anyone or anything else for what I have, I expect the same for others. UNLESS, (see post below) they TRULY are disabled. People's unemployment bennies should be cut off when the $$ that they/their employers paid have run out. Otherwise, you are literally stealing food from the mouths of me and my employees.

Actually, RC, I like a lot of your comments. I was actually cheering on your reply to Pan. I actually can see both sides of the coin, but when it comes right down to it, people should be responsible for themselves. I am compassionate, I have taken into my household (some times for years) people who have lost their jobs, got injured, lost everything. But that is cuz I cared for those people and I was financially able and willing, NOT because I was forced to.

I think we are in agreement. Small business is the backbone of the US and also employs in excess of 75% of the work force.

You provide more to your community than any big corporation that sponsors the youth center or whatever charity they donate to for a PR moment could ever possibly do, and you should be commended for it.

People should be responsible for themselves. It is a basic motivation that has to come from within.

Sad people like pan who buy into the daily WWE event called Dem vs. Repub. Liberal vs. Conservative media bullshit show don't realize that it is just that, a show. Designed to divide and conquer the masses. Oldest form of crowd control known to mankind: divide and conquer.

Yes, thank you, agreed. Those big corps only donate for the PR and tax deduction. I have donated much $$/time/resources to local community, the only time ya see the pollys and corps are when the TV cameras are there. What it really comes down to is how much you love your community and what you are willing to do for it. We have to change the way we live, the system as it exists is unsustainable. The whole world is spiraling into complete chaos and the only thing that will save me, my community, my nation is that we have to work together, for the common good. We also have to learn to be more tolerant of differences, learn how to be personally responsible for everything one does and to learn how to love one another. Hate/greed/sloth accomplish nothing.

Half of those 'small businesses' are building contractors and farmers who hire illegals. The other half are 'independent contractors' who think they are getting a great deal until they get sick, lose their contracts and their insurance (if they bothered to buy any.) My local pharmacy is trying to keep Walgreens out. Fuck'em - if they cannot compete they shouldn't be in business.

I don't know about Walgreens, but for example do you think local stores can compete with a Walmart that is so big they can tell their suppliers how much they are going to pay or else. They have suppliers in China and unlimited resources compared to the locals. I use to think the same way as you, the more competition the better, but after I saw how Walmart games the system, employees, and suppliers, I changed my mind.

That's the way it goes, that is capitalism. Monopolies and big business are the logiciel end to capitalism as the power gets concentrated. Pretty soon everyone will work for Walmart. I am waiting for Walmart to have clinics in their stores so the poor people can get their blood pressure checked and get the prescription for their meds filled while spending their Walmart paycheck on ramen noodles.

People's unemployment bennies should be cut off when the $$ that they/their employers paid have run out. Otherwise, you are literally stealing food from the mouths of me and my employees.

At this point, many people will actually get close to what they paid in to UI. For those whom are 5+ years out, they'll probably not max out.

That gets me mad is stupid, lazy people who can't figure out anything else than being a wage slave to feel they have a right to take MY and MY EMPLOYEES money from our families mouths because they are too lazy to work at McDonalds or start their own biz when their bennies run out.

You're asking them to take the haircut by taking work that recalculates their UI quite far downward, or nullifies it. Ironically, getting work that's very far below is less rational of them (economically speaking) if they know unemployment is near-certain over the short-medium term. For more than a few people, the UI office will say just that to people, and possibly overlook their lack of applications. Those people will probably be better served by a WPA II(worst case if they refuse these people or play dirty pool w/ employment law), a suspension of all H1/L1/outsourcing(direct and indirect), a major relaxing of unemployment regulations for contract employees, and/or making it no worse off as a contractor than it is to be a full employee(from both sides of the employment agreement). If you want them working, dang well make it worth their while to do so before their benefits run out - not in desperation after.

Your words might be good in an economy that isn't on the edges of being GDII. However, it is on the edges of GDII.